Hadar Aviram on When is An Anti-Homelessness Ordinance is Vague? (Hadar Aviram論反遊民法規的模糊性)Posted: 07/07/2014
Hadar Aviram在PrawfsBlawg中，發表一篇討論（按此閱讀！），是在討論加州對於反遊民的市政規則的正當性問題。他說他在教受刑法議題時，較長著重的是日常生活中的犯罪，而不是謀殺等等的。他討論的重點是第九巡迴法院廢止了加州洛杉磯市的一個市政法規（municipal ordiance），該市政法規禁止將交通工具的用途用來「生活」（the use of a vehicle “as living quarters either overnight, day-by-day, or otherwise.”）。這一項法規由於不明確因此賦予執法機關很大的裁量權，因而違憲（unconstitutional vague），我想最值得思考的是下面這一段話：
The real question beneath the surface is, why does it matter to the city whether someone down on his or her luck sleeps in their car?Presumably, if someone sleeps in her car, she doesn’t get cold and sick; she’s not drunk in the street; and she’s not otherwise causing mischief or taxing our already scant welfare dollars. The response has got to be some sort of NIMBYist aesthetic distaste, which Judge Kozinski’s decision in Roulette glosses over but never addresses directly. What the architects of this ordinance would really want is for the homeless population to disappear. But because these are real people, they’re not going to just vanish like Holden Caulfield’s ducks in Central Park. They still have to sleep and eat, and they’re going to have to find ways to do it, and going one by one to eliminate these modes of survival, vague or not, arbitrary or not, is cruel and inhumane.